Really players are only getting the xp/cash of selling items by re-doing lower level content in GW2. It's more something to do because you hopefully enjoy doing that content for it's own sake. "And then some" is maybe a little bit of an overstatement.

As already mentioned, other games not called World of Warcraft have had down leveling and AA systems for years too.

Yeah, except I was pretty specific. I guess I have to literally draw a picture around here.

The problem is you and others want to push the game (or at least discussion of the game) to how you want the game to be, not how the game is. There are other games that have X endgame model, the GW franchise uses a different design (of course, it exists to an extent in elite dungeons in GW1, which I hope [and expect] will make a return in some fashion and at some point in GW2, but not at launch -- and even then it was of the same, cosmetic-only but challenging content style).

Trying to mold the game into what you think you want rather than what is good for the game (different design goals compared to raid-centric games) would--were they incorporated--ruin the game it intends to be. Mind you, since I know you'll misconstrue what I wrote, the game isn't perfect, but it does it's job well, and I expect a steady influx of new content to occupy--and hopefully more challenging content.

The problem is you and others want to push the game (or at least discussion of the game) to how you want the game to be, not how the game is.

How so? More than anything I just want to see the game live up to its potential. I never asked for it to be a different game, I'm wishing that it were at least it's own game. Right now it's just a traditional MMO in denial. I suppose it's my fault for not realizing that the genre really isn't ready to be totally overhauled just yet, though.

Trying to mold the game into what you think you want rather than what is good for the game (different design goals compared to raid-centric games) would--were they incorporated--ruin the game it intends to be.

This is where these discussions fall apart. You and others (borrowed!) always bring up WoW or raiding or any number of other talking points, even though the people you're addressing haven't even brought them up. I didn't say I wanted a raid-centric game, if anything I've said time and again that the content doesn't have to be raiding.

Hell, I've even given examples of content *in this game* that could be really fun, challenging encounters. Problem is that all the interesting mechanics are in zerg-fest events where they go unnoticed and all the single-group instanced content is packed with Mickey-Mouse nonsense. It's a weird turnaround.

Problem is that all the interesting mechanics are in zerg-fest events where they go unnoticed and all the single-group instanced content is packed with Mickey-Mouse nonsense. It's a weird turnaround.

I'll agree with you there. There's a couple of issues at work there, between scaling not seemingly working 100% properly (which allows zergs when it really shouldn't) and fewer mechanics on dungeon bosses. Despite those issues, I don't see it as a long-term problem. I expect that in (relatively) little time we'll get both more and more-interesting (and ideally, more challenging) content. The problem is, people want it now, when ANet is busy both fixing bugs with current content and developing new content. Both take time and resources, and even with separate teams, can't be done immediately, or yesterday, or last week or month.

I didn't say I wanted a raid-centric game, if anything I've said time and again that the content doesn't have to be raiding.

Actually...you keep saying that they've removed content (raids), which is true...and you keep suggesting they add content (non-gear-based raids)...directly contradicting what you said here! Sure, you might change the name (what'd you call it, structured PvE I think), but it amounts to the same thing. Which, as long as 2 things don't occur, would be fine. But don't sit here and say you're not asking for raids when you're explicitly asking for raids.

And the two things I'm referring to, by the way, are elitism and segregation, and schedule-oriented gameplay. Sure, you'll say those are both on the community...and you'd be right. But the game design can influence the community, as can be seen in the GW2 community. Now, I don't have answers on how to prevent that, but that's why ANet is paid the big bucks

Actually...you keep saying that they've removed content (raids), which is true...and you keep suggesting they add content (non-gear-based raids)...directly contradicting what you said here! Sure, you might change the name (what'd you call it, structured PvE I think), but it amounts to the same thing. Which, as long as 2 things don't occur, would be fine. But don't sit here and say you're not asking for raids when you're explicitly asking for raids.

Um, no. I never said raids. I said time and again and again - even in my sPvE suggestion post on the official boards - that it DOES NOT have to be raiding. At all. In any way. It can be 5-man content, or whatever else the developers/players want.

The problem is, people want it now

Yeeeah. Guilty as charged. =D

And the two things I'm referring to, by the way, are elitism and segregation, and schedule-oriented gameplay. Sure, you'll say those are both on the community...and you'd be right. But the game design can influence the community, as can be seen in the GW2 community.

As for schedule oriented gameplay...that can work on a spectrum. On one end you've got "everything is puggable, bring whoever has a pulse." and on the other end there is, "Hardcore raid guilds only, you must show up at this time at this place with this character or else." but there's a lot in-between there as well. Either extreme can start to alienate people really fast, I would imagine.

EDIT: I thought I'd clarify what the alternative would be...for example, if you remove lockouts or diminishing returns on a dungeon, but still make it challenging then you have a situation where you could jump into a pug any time you want, but at the same time it's worthwhile to get your trusted guildmembers or something together to do it when everyone is available. So you're not LOCKED into a schedule.

Really players are only getting the xp/cash of selling items by re-doing lower level content in GW2. It's more something to do because you hopefully enjoy doing that content for it's own sake. "And then some" is maybe a little bit of an overstatement.

That's fair enough. I still stand by my point though - that since WoW is designed as a bimodal game with the components "leveling until max level" followed by "raiding", and GW2 is designed as a unimodal game (or multimodal, depending on how you look at it) with multiple components, you really can't compare the two.

That's fair enough. I still stand by my point though - that since WoW is designed as a bimodal game with the components "leveling until max level" followed by "raiding", and GW2 is designed as a unimodal game (or multimodal, depending on how you look at it) with multiple components, you really can't compare the two.

I would not disagree with that too strongly. The intention and design goals are so fantastically different between the two games.

In total honesty, I don't believe WoW is a good point of comparison to many MMOs. Warcraft is kinda unique in it's structure. Really there are not many "wow clones". WoW is a somewhat limited and as I said earlier tonight- singular game. In terms of gameplay and design, I mean.

That's interesting. Personally, I don't see GW2 as being different from any other MMO. The things you do and how you do them are pretty much the same from start to finish. The "bimodal" and "unimodal" thing is strictly true, I guess. The problem is that GW2's "unimode" is exactly the same as other MMO's "first state of bimodal" rather than "combination of both states" as would have been truly revolutionary.

You could seriously make two flowcharts of "Things you do in GW2" and "Things you do from start to max level in most other MMO's" and you wouldn't be able to tell the two apart.

That's interesting. Personally, I don't see GW2 as being different from any other MMO.

Well, it is though. Guild Wars as a series eschews a lot of well known conventions in the genre. Their [Anet] goal for you to play the game and game structure is simply not aimed to appeal to the audience interested in many of the genre's tropes.

A bimodal endgame intends for players to play that second phase at some point.

Guild Wars does not. Players are suppose to enjoy the single phase, at relatively the same power level... forever.

Players just never got more powerful in Guild Wars. There was nothing else once you ran through PVE in full. It was always the same type of activities from level 1-20. For 5 or so years. Over 4 complete standalone games and 1 expansion pack now.

That's pretty different in design goal from other MMOs. Even breaks from the structure of MMOs which are not bimodal but may be linear in some other way. But if you want to say "Well you can do quests in games X, Y and Z too"-- yes, that will be true. However, is simply playing the quests in of themselves intended to be the gist those games?

That's interesting. Personally, I don't see GW2 as being different from any other MMO. The things you do and how you do them are pretty much the same from start to finish. The "bimodal" and "unimodal" thing is strictly true, I guess. The problem is that GW2's "unimode" is exactly the same as other MMO's "first state of bimodal" rather than "combination of both states" as would have been truly revolutionary.

You could seriously make two flowcharts of "Things you do in GW2" and "Things you do from start to max level in most other MMO's" and you wouldn't be able to tell the two apart.

The difference is in games that focus on "endgame" being "the entire game", the leveling portion is trivialized (in the sense of not having meaningful or difficult content) for the sake of getting to endgame and playing the "real" game.

I like how there is more than one way to "gear up". Karma, WvW, Crafting, or Tokens. Not the first game to do it, but more should go this route. Raids shouldn't be the only form of endgame progression.

Dungeons are dungeons, you like them or you don't. Some of the paths are interesting, some are on the level of puggable raids.

If you can rap your head around the Orr meta events work, it can be fun progressing through the zones.

My favorite part of the "endgame" is WvW though. Get a guild and its like raid night except you're fighting other raid groups.

The difference is in games that focus on "endgame" being "the entire game", the leveling portion is trivialized (in the sense of not having meaningful or difficult content) for the sake of getting to endgame and playing the "real" game.

But...that's true for GW2 as well. The leveling process is even more trivialized, in fact. You can pretty much just plow through to 80 in no time, and without even really paying attention. (Hell, you could just sit in your starting town and craft to 80 if you want.)

That's not a slam on the game, it's just the way the genre is designed, which makes it even more mind-boggling in GW2's case because it literally is just more of the same. Why did they have levels at all? Why is there the standard "zone funneling" and segregation by level that every other MMO has? Why are events so simplistic and zergable at any level?

If you're going for a game that breaks from the norm and wants that "unimodal" experience, why make it such a mirror of how every other MMO has done it?

That's pretty different in design goal from other MMOs. Even breaks from the structure of MMOs which are not bimodal but may be linear in some other way. But if you want to say "Well you can do quests in games X, Y and Z too"-- yes, that will be true. However, is simply playing the quests in of themselves intended to be the gist those games?

No it wouldn't be...but therein lies the problem. You can do quests in games X, Y and Z too, so again why follow the standard MMO formula so closely? Having 1-80+ in your game play out the same way that level 1-80 plays out in "EverWorld of Questcraft: The Old Republic" doesn't seem like the way to go if you're trying to do something different.

No it wouldn't be...but therein lies the problem. You can do quests in games X, Y and Z too, so again why follow the standard MMO formula so closely? Having 1-80+ in your game play out the same way that level 1-80 plays out in "EverWorld of Questcraft: The Old Republic" doesn't seem like the way to go if you're trying to do something different.

It can be. Because they are doing something different. It may not be the difference you are looking for is all.

Ok, serious question then...what are they doing that's different? Or specifically, so different that a player from another MMO would look at it and say, "That's markedly different from the game I'm currently in."

The only major differences I can really see all simply revolve around what they're NOT doing, as opposed to new, different things that they're bringing to the table.

Ok, serious question then...what are they doing that's different? Or specifically, so different that a player from another MMO would look at it and say, "That's markedly different from the game I'm currently in."

A fair few things. Nothing they're doing is particularly new, but the very blurred line between endgame and levelling content is rather different from MMOs currently. The PvP having a level progression system is also rather different, as is the large scale PvP in WvWvW (note: different, not new.).

It's things you wouldn't necessarily associate with the MMORPG genre in its current state that GW2 are doing. Some of it is going down really well, some of it not so much. As someone who isn't a massive fan of PvP, they aren't doing enough different to keep me playing for an extended amount of time as PvE is currently rather lackluster for me.

Ok, serious question then...what are they doing that's different? Or specifically, so different that a player from another MMO would look at it and say, "That's markedly different from the game I'm currently in."

The only major differences I can really see all simply revolve around what they're NOT doing, as opposed to new, different things that they're bringing to the table.

What you're missing is that you're not forced to do something you're not interested in, in order to do what you are interested in.

Ok, serious question then...what are they doing that's different? Or specifically, so different that a player from another MMO would look at it and say, "That's markedly different from the game I'm currently in."

Think I touched on it already in post 813: content for it's own sake, hard ceiling on player power, no progression past level 80, equalized gear tiers, definitive end to PVE content.

The game never becomes something else or more beyond what is experienced from level 1 through 80. The entire premise of the series hinges on one playing just to play.

For example, there were whole maps and quests in GW1 which could be skipped, were not tied to the main quests or gave any significant reward. Hundreds of quests actually. If one simply ran the missions from level 1-20 and completed the campaign-- both possible & viable, one wouldn't even visit most of these zones or quests. Like at all.

Those maps/quests existed merely as something to do for their own sake.

That is different.

Those quest you do on the way to level X in Rift or TOR are only there to get you over to the next level. In those two games in particular the questing scheme is extremely economical. You almost always are at the exact level required & desired by the developers each step. Until one no longer needs these quests and then the game becomes bimodal [TOR] or linear [Rift] in progression path.

The above mentioned MMOs have perpetual progression paths too. Guild Wars does not. It ends. Ends absolutely mind you, in the case of Guild Wars 1's gameplay. It seems this is the case of Guild Wars 2 as well until xpac 1.

What it seems you are saying is, 'why not innovate on questing models?'. Okay, that's fair. But what if the difference they are shooting for isn't so much removing leveling or questing [which I feel they should have done] but in presenting those tropes or conventions differently?

That's the wrinkle. And why I said GW is different in a way you may not expressly be looking for. But it is a series that is quite different in goal & intention from many other MMOs regardless.

What you're missing is that you're not forced to do something you're not interested in, in order to do what you are interested in.

Ok, but...all the things you do in GW2 that you aren't forced to "do something you're not interested in" you can also do in any other MMO without being forced to "do something you're not interested in."

This is the weird circle we get caught up in on this topic.

You can leave town, do some hearts, do some events, explore around, gather some materials, check out that hill over there, and generally just do "stuff".

In other MMO's you can leave town, do some quests or tasks, explore around, gather some materials, check out that hill over there, and generally just do "stuff".

In both cases, you don't need to grind or farm to do the things, you can just go out and do them. This isn't something different, new, revolutionary or anything else. It's just more of the same standard MMO fare. The only difference is what GW2 does NOT do, as opposed to what new things they bring to the table.

Note: The only place this isn't true is PvP, and I give them huge, mad props for taking the gear grind and other nonsense out of PvP and simply letting people fight. Totally honest, sincere kudos to them on that, but at the same time it boggles me why they took that approach there, but kept the standard MMO system in place for the rest of the game.